Evaluating special educator and transition personnel knowledge and skills for working with diverse families and students during the transition process: Preliminary development and validation of an assessment instrument

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Family involvement during the transition process is crucial. However, culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families report barriers to effective transition planning related to cultural misunderstandings with educators. Professionals need to be culturally competent when interacting with CLD families and youth.

OBJECTIVE:

The objective was to revise a CLD Transition Knowledge and Skills (CLDTKS) Evaluation Instrument and have special educators use the instrument to evaluate the levels of CLD transition knowledge and skills of their colleagues.

METHODS:

The CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument was revised following expert review. Participants included 206 special educators. Exploratory factor analysis was used to explore the factor structure of the instrument. Structural equation modeling was used to test construct validity, and confirmatory factor analyses were performed. Means were computed for all factors.

RESULTS:

The CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument consisted of four scales: Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement, Family Norms and Communication Styles, Individualized Education Program (IEP) Meetings and Transition Policies, and Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice. For all factors, there was a lower mean on skills than on knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument is a valid and reliable measure for evaluating transition knowledge and skills related to working with CLD youth and families, and it can be used for research and professional development needs.

Keywords

Transition cultural and linguistic diversity family involvement assessment instrument

1 Introduction

Much has been written and published over the past several decades attempting to explain the poorer transition outcomes of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) youth with disabilities, with a particular emphasis on the role of the family because family involvement during the transition process has long been recognized as crucial to a child’s post-school success (Kohler, 1996; Kohler et al., 2016; Landmark et al., 2010). Numerous authors have interviewed CLD families and/or commented about the challenges these families face during the transition planning process and transition years. CLD parents report a lack of culturally responsive communication from professionals during the transition assessment and planning process (Achola & Greene, 2016; Barrera & Corso, 2003; Gil-Kashiwabara et al., 2007; Greene, 2014; Kalyanpur & Harry, 2012; Kim & Morningstar, 2005; Landmark et al., 2007; Pewewardy & Fitzpatrick, 2009; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2010; Yamamoto & Black, 2015), and they feel school personnel exhibit poor attitudes and stereotypes toward CLD families and youth with disabilities (Gil-Kashiwabara, 2012). CLD families have reported experiencing contextual and institutional barriers including poverty, stress, and lack of legal knowledge and information regarding the transition planning process (Geenen et al., 2005; Landmark et al., 2007). Additionally, CLD parents have reported differences in CLD family attitudes, norms, and values related to transition of their child to adulthood (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Lai & Ishiyama, 2004).

Despite the research on the aforementioned challenges of collaborating with school personnel, youth with disabilities from CLD groups continue to have poorer transition outcomes compared to their European American peers (referred to as “White” peers in the National Longitudinal Transition Study-1 and -2; Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Newman et al., 2009; Sanford et al., 2011). Specifically, African American, Hispanic, and Native American individuals with disabilities were found to be less likely to graduate from high school (Johnson, 2008), and African American young adults with disabilities were found to be less likely to be employed and live independently after high school compared to their European American peers with disabilities (Newman et al., 2009; Sanford et al., 2011). Finally, African American students were suspended or expelled at rates higher than Hispanic or European American students, thus negatively affecting African American students’ school completion and post-school transition outcomes (Porowski et al., 2014).

Special educators are typically responsible for planning and facilitating the transition from school to adult environments for students with disabilities (Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014), and special educators are predominantly White, female, and middle class (Institute for Education Sciences, 2013). Because transition services in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) is grounded in individualistic, Western-assumptions, it is important for special education teachers to be culturally competent when interacting with CLD families and youth with disabilities during the transition planning process, especially because the families and youth may not subscribe to IDEIA’s individualistic ideals (Leake et al., 2003/04). By engaging in culturally competent transition planning, as opposed to the more traditional transition planning approach, better transition outcomes for CLD youth may occur (Achola & Greene, 2016). Lynch and Hanson (2011) identified five critical aspects of cultural competence for optimizing communication with CLD individuals: (a) an awareness of one’s own cultural limitations; (b) openness, appreciation, and respect for cultural differences; (c) a view of intercultural interactions as a learning opportunity; (d) the ability to use cultural resources in interventions; and (e) acknowledgement of the integrity and values of all cultures.

Additionally, there is a need for researchers and policymakers to be able to determine the level of cultural competence in special educators who are assisting and guiding CLD families and youth with disabilities during the transition planning process. Most preservice special education teacher preparation programs do not provide adequate levels of training needed to effectively plan and deliver transition services to transition-aged students with disabilities in general (Anderson, 2003; Benitez et al., 2009), let alone to CLD students with disabilities. Because university teacher preparation programs are driven by federal and state policies and priorities, it is important to be able to evaluate special education teachers’ cultural competence for working with CLD families so policymakers can be informed of additional needs in their states (Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014). Culturally responsive transition planning has been identified as an important emerging competency area for transition specialists (Morningstar & Nix, 2012, as cited in Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2015). It is not enough for practitioners to simply possess knowledge about various CLD groups; they must also possess specific skills to effectively collaborate with CLD families during transition planning.

A number of authors have analyzed and discussed existing instruments and tools for measuring cultural competence in teachers (see Bustamante et al., 2016; Byrd & Olivieri, 2014; Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 2016; Patel, 2017; Ramos et al., 2015). Examples of constructs measured in individuals who complete these various instruments include the following: cultural self-awareness, verbal and nonverbal communication strategies, attitudes and beliefs about other cultures, global perspectives, intercultural sensitivity and competence, and knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks. Some of the instruments measure both intercultural knowledge and skills in teacher respondents. However, none of these instruments were specifically designed evaluating special education teachers with a focus on the context of transition planning with CLD families and youth with disabilities. Because planning for a student’s future is culturally-dependent, it is vital special educators possess the knowledge and skills necessary to engage in culturally sensitive transition planning with the student and their family.

With these concerns in mind, the CLD Transition Knowledge and Skills (CLDTKS) Evaluation Instrument was designed to evaluate the quality of cultural competence, knowledge, and skills in special educators and transition personnel involved in transition planning with CLD families and youth with disabilities. The original version of the instrument was published in a book by Greene (2011) entitled Transition Planning for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Youth. The structure and specific items on the instrument were based on three constructs that were derived from published literature on the topic of cultural competence in special educators. These constructs included (a) general characteristics of cultural and linguistic diversity (see publications by Barrera & Corso, 2003; Brandon, 2007; Brandon & Brown, 2009; Garcia et al., 2010; Harry, 1992 & 2008; Harry et al., 1995; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1997 & 1999, Lai & Ishiyama, 2004; Leake & Boone, 2007; Locust, 1988 & 1994; Lynch & Hanson, 2011; Pewardy & Fitzpatrick, 2009; and Zionts et al., 2003; b) quality of transition planning meeting practices with CLD family members (see publications by Geenan et al., 2003; Gil-Kashiwabara et al., 2007; Greene, 1996; Landmark et al., 2007; Leake & Black, 2005; Kim & Morningstar, 2005; Povenmire-Kirk et al., 2010; Rueda et al., 2005; Trainor, 2007; Valenzuela & Martin, 2005); and (c) quality for promoting CLD family knowledge of school or transition agency policies, practices, and procedures (see publications by Barrera & Corso, 2003; Blue-Banning et al., 2004; Brandon, 2007; Brandon & Brown, 2009; Greene, 1996; Harry, 1992 & 2008; Harry et al., 1995; Inger, 1992; Kalyanpur & Harry, 1997 & 1999; Kim & Morningstar, 2005; Lai & Ishiyama, 2004; Landmark et al., 2007; Liontos, 1991; Lynch & Hanson, 2011; Olivos, 2009; Pewardy & Fitzpatrick, 2009).

The original CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument was not designed to be a self-evaluation instrument. Rather, it was designed to be used by supervisory personnel to evaluate these capabilities in transition services personnel in their school districts or agencies. The instructions stated that the purpose of the survey was:

to determine the degree to which transition services personnel within your school or agency possess knowledge (i.e., awareness, information, understanding) and skills (ability to design, create, implement in practice) to effectively collaborate with culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) families in the transition planning process for youth with disabilities. (Greene, 2011, Chapter 2 Appendix)

The rationale for designing the instrument as an evaluation tool versus a self-rating instrument was so schools and transition agency supervisory personnel could use the instrument to obtain data that could help them design targeted staff development on effectively collaborating with CLD families in the transition planning process.

When the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument was published, it had not undergone field-testing for validity and reliability, nor had a study been conducted investigating the usefulness of the instrument. With these thoughts in mind, the purposes of this preliminary study were to (a) conduct an expert panel review of the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument for content validity, (b) determine construct validity and reliability of the instrument, (c) revise the original instrument if needed, and (d) administer the survey to a sample group of secondary special educators and transition personnel. Our research questions were (a) To what extent is the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument a valid and reliable measure of transition knowledge and skills in special education and transition personnel engaged in transition planning with CLD youth and families? and (b) What do special education and transition personnel perceive to be the level of knowledge and skills in their colleagues who work with CLD youth and their families, and is there a perceived gap between their colleagues’ levels of CLD transition knowledge and skills?

2 Method

2.1 Participants

A total of 314 secondary special education practitioners started the survey and 206 completed the survey, reflecting a 65.6% completion rate. Among the participants, 86.4% (n = 178) were females, 12.6% (n = 26) were males, less than 1% (n = 1) were transgender, and less than 1% (n = 1) did not report. The ethnicities of the participants included Caucasians (82.5%, n = 170), African Americans (4.4%, n = 9), Hispanics (2.4%, n = 5), American Indian or Alaska Native or Asian (2%, n = 4), those with two or more ethnicities (4.9%, n = 10), and seven participants (3.4%) who declined to state their ethnicity. The average years of experience working in special education was 18.02 years (SD = 15.32), and the average age was 47.19 years (ranged from 23– 70 years, SD = 10.77). Of the 197 participants who reported their highest degree level, 17.8% (n = 35) had a bachelor’s degree, 68.5% (n = 135) had a master’s degree, and 13.7% (n = 27) had a doctoral degree. Participants were from 31 states that covered all the regions in the nation, such as 28.6% (n = 59) from the Midwest, 9% (n = 19) from the Northeast, 8.7% (n = 18) from the Southeast, 41.7% (n = 86) from the Southwest, 10.7% (n = 22) from the West, and less than 1% (n = 2) unknown.

2.2 Instrument

The original CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument (see Greene, 2011) consisted of four sections: general characteristics of CLD; quality of transition planning meeting practices; quality for promoting CLD family knowledge of school or transition agency policies, practices, and procedures; and additional comments. Much of the content of the original CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument was based on recommended evidence-based instructional strategies for transition (Test, 2011) and Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming (Kohler, 1996; Kohler et al., 2016), with a focus on research on transition planning with CLD students and families (e.g., Geenen et al., 2005; Kim & Morningstar 2005; Landmark et al., 2010). The concepts included in the original instrument were chosen for a couple reasons. First, because special education is rooted in the medical model of disability and focuses on deficits, special educators need to have cultural competence to ensure positive and meaningful collaboration during transition planning with students and families of other cultures than the educator’s culture. Second, transition services as defined by the IDEA assume a Western, Eurocentric perspective. Special educators are to help students prepare for further education, employment, and independent living regardless of the family’s desires for the student, which may be influenced greatly by the family’s culture and views of disability.

Each section of the original instrument included a preface explaining key concepts. For example, in the section on general characteristics of CLD, there were examples of CLD family values, beliefs, and practices because there were questions about the knowledge and skills secondary special education and transition personnel possess regarding CLD family values, beliefs, and practices. Within the first sections of the instrument, there were a total of fifteen items participants could rate the knowledge and skills levels of special education and transition personnel in their school or agency for each of the items. Thus, for each item, participants needed to make two determinations: one for the degree to which they felt special education and transition personnel possessed knowledge and one for the degree to which they felt these individuals possessed skills.

The revised instrument, after expert review, consisted of demographic questions, 31 knowledge items, and 31 corresponding skill items. The concepts measured in the sections of the revised instrument included general characteristics of cultural and linguistic diversity; quality of meeting practices; and quality of promoting CLD family knowledge of transition polices, practices, and procedures. The general characteristics of cultural and linguistic diversity section included sub-sections on CLD family integration and acculturation status, CLD family attitudes and beliefs related to disabilities, CLD family interpersonal communication style, CLD family structure and norms, CLD family involvement in planning for adulthood, and CLD family experiences with prejudice and discrimination.

2.3 Procedures

2.3.1 Expert review of the instrument

To gauge the content validity of the original CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument and revise the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument if needed, we solicited the feedback of a group of experts. The expert group was devised by searching the ERIC database for authors of publications that addressed at least two of the following topics: secondary transition, family or parent involvement, and cultural and/or linguistic diversity. We tallied the number of publications of the authors who published in at least two of these areas. Sixteen researchers who had at least three publications in the targeted topic areas were identified and invited to participate as expert reviewers, and ten researchers agreed to participate. There were two phases of expert review. After the first review, the instrument was revised and sent back to the expert group for a second review. After the second review, we did not send the revised instrument back to the expert group.

Phase I. During the first round of review, the experts were asked to indicate the degree to which they believed the original CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument’s items encompassed the general characteristics of CLD families in relation to transition, methods of promoting active involvement of CLD families during the transition process, and methods of promoting CLD families’ understanding of the legal aspects of transition. This was accomplished by creating statements about each of the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument’s items in the different sections of the instrument (i.e., general characteristics of CLD; quality of transition planning meeting practices; quality for promoting CLD family knowledge of school or transition agency policies, practices, and procedures; and additional comments) to assess the experts’ levels of agreement with the statements. For example, for items in the general characteristics of CLD, the experts were asked to indicate their level of agreement regarding the item being a general characteristic of CLD families. Tallies for each of the levels of agreement (i.e., strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree) were counted for each item. Items that 25% or more of the experts indicated they were in disagreement with were revised. Experts were also asked to add missing characteristics and methods of promoting involvement and understanding of transition for each of the sections and items of the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument. Eight experts completed the first review, and their comments were considered for revision, comment by comment. As a result of their feedback, changes to the instrument included revising directions for completing the survey, adding a definition of CLD, restructuring the categories (i.e., sections), adding separate knowledge and skill statements, revising item statements, and adding additional item statements. The most substantial change was the operationalization of the skill statements so that each knowledge statement had a corresponding skill statement that would provide observable evidence of the skill one could do if they were able to implement the knowledge they had. The experts felt one could have knowledge of something, yet may not have the skills to use that knowledge effectively. This is why they suggested separate questions to assess knowledge and skills.

Phase II. During the second round of review, the experts were asked to indicate the degree to which they believed the instrument comprehensively addressed characteristics of CLD families in relation to transition (i.e., strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly disagree), the knowledge statements were important for transition personnel who work with CLD families (i.e., not important, somewhat important, and very important), and the skill statements operationalized the knowledge statements (i.e., not well at all, somewhat well, and very well). Similar to round one, the experts were asked to provide comments. None of the experts indicated they disagreed with the characteristics of CLD in relation to transition, so the characteristics were not revised further. The knowledge statements that at least one expert indicated he or she did not feel were important and the skill statements that at least one expert indicated he or she did not feel were operationalized well at all were examined and revised using the additional comments provided by the experts. Six experts completed the second round of review.

2.3.2 Data collection

Secondary special education teachers and transition specialists were invited via a convenience sampling method followed by snowball sampling. First, we contacted transition professionals across the US with whom we had professional relationships (e.g., professionals that one of the authors provided consultation services on transition issues, previous school district and higher education colleagues, professionals at the authors’ state education service centers). Second, we emailed attendees of the 2014 Council for Exceptional Children Division on Career Development and Transition (DCDT) conference. Third, we contacted the regional and state DCDT subdivisions (subdivisions: Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest; states: Florida, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia). Finally, we posted a link to the survey instrument on the Council for Exceptional Children’s Community Forum and passed out flyers at the 2015 Council for Exceptional Children convention. We subsequently asked each group of individuals to complete the survey themselves and then forward the instrument to their contacts who work in secondary special education.

Participants completed the survey online through Qualtrics. The beginning of the survey presented the purpose of the study and a definition of CLD by Barrera and Corso (2003). The first section of the survey gathered demographic information. The knowledge and skills sections of the survey followed. Each of the 31 knowledge questions was presented immediately before its corresponding skills question, for a total of 62 questions to be answered by the participants. Participants rated their colleagues’ knowledge and skills using a Likert-like scale (i.e., inadequate, needs improvement, undecided, good, excellent).

2.4 Data analysis

The analyses are conducted to address two aforementioned research questions. First, we examined the validity and reliability of the CLDTK Evaluation Instrument and identified the same factor structures between CLD transition knowledge and skills, so we could compare them. Second, we compared the mean differences between the factors of transition knowledge and skills in order to detect perceived gaps between the two.

To explore the factor structure of the instrument itself, we first conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the knowledge items. Parallel analysis (Velicer, 1976), which is a Monte Carlo simulation technique and has been recommended by methodological researchers (Henson & Roberts, 2006), was used to determine the number of factors based on the mean eigenvalue criterion; and the factors were extracted using principal axis factoring. To test the construct validity of the assessment, we utilized structural equation modeling (SEM) methodology. A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were then performed to examine whether the measurement structure was comparable for the knowledge items and for the skills items (i.e., whether measurement items for knowledge are aligned with those for skills). Specifically, in order to identify any discrepancies between knowledge and skills among our participants, we first examined measurement invariance (specifically factorial invariance for CFA) between the knowledge items and the skills items to obtain meaningful comparisons of the latent factor means (Meredith, 1993; Millsap, 2011). In the second stage of factorial invariance testing, we fitted a metric invariance model, where the factor loadings of the items were constrained to be equal across knowledge and skills. In the final stage, we fitted a scalar invariance model where the measurement intercepts of the items were constrained to be equal. Through this approach, a measurement model for both knowledge and skills in the same structure was tested and validated.

As 45 out of 206 participants did not provide a response on at least one of the knowledge items, we handled data with full information maximum likelihood (i.e., missing data was treated within the analysis model without imputation or replacement) for the EFA and the CFA analyses, using age, gender, and educational level as auxiliary variables (Graham, 2003). All CFA models were fitted in Mplus 7.11, and model fit was deemed adequate with the comparative fit index (CFI)≥0.90, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)≤0.06, and the standardized root mean squared residual≤0.08 (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). Given that the knowledge and skills items were on a 5-point scale and the normality assumption for the analyses might not be fully met, we used the MLR estimator in Mplus to obtain robust χ² statistic and standard errors of the parameter estimates.

Measurement invariance warrants the same construct is being measured between CLD transition knowledge and skills. The reliability and validity tests of the instrument indicated the test results are reliable and the interpretations of the results are warranted. After the constructs had been validated, means of retained items were calculated for each scale and used as the composite score. Mean differences and effect sizes were calculated for each scale based on composite scores.

3 Results

3.1 Validity and reliability of CLDTKS instrument

The EFA results with parallel analysis suggested a four factor model would be most appropriate for the data. For exploratory purposes, we used 0.30 as cutoff for standardized factor loadings. Then we conducted a series of CFAs to explore whether the same factor structure could be observed for the knowledge items and for the skill items. First, we fitted a confirmatory eight-factor measurement model (i.e., a baseline model), with the same assignment of items to factors as previously designed on both knowledge items and skills items. The baseline model did not show adequate fit, χ²(df = 1770, N = 206) = 3138.96, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.058, 90% CI [0.055, 0.061], CFI = 0.851, SRMR = 0.070. Consulting modification indices in a stepwise manner, we dropped items that had large loadings on more than one latent factor. If a knowledge item was dropped, the corresponding skill item was also dropped. This results in 25 total items for both knowledge and skills. We also freed the unique factor covariances between four pairs of items and across knowledge and skills. The resulting model showed acceptable fit with χ²(df = 1106, N = 206) = 1731.99, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.050, 90% CI [0.045, 0.054], CFI = 0.911, SRMR = 0.064. All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001) with standardized coefficients between 0.54 and 0.87.

After we identified a fitted model, we further tested whether constructs for knowledge and skills are the same. We tested metric invariance by constraining the factor loadings to be equal across knowledge and skills. The metric invariance model showed adequate fit with χ²(df = 1127, N = 206) = 1763.38, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.050, 90% CI [0.045, 0.054], CFI = 0.909, SRMR = 0.067. Comparing the metric invariance model with the previous configural invariance model, we had ΔCFI = 0.002 and ΔMNCI = 0.006, which were smaller than any of the cutoff values suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (2002), Kang et al. (2015), and Meade et al. (2008). The result suggested that metric invariance held for the data. Therefore, the CLDTKS instrument held the same factor structure for both knowledge and skills.

As a final step, in order to compare factor means between knowledge and skills, at least partial scalar invariance is needed (Millsap & Kwok, 2004). Therefore, we fitted a scalar invariance model with all the measurement intercepts constrained to be equal across knowledge and skills. The full scalar invariance model fitted the data relatively less well, with χ²(df = 1148, N = 206) = 1891.68, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.053, 90% CI [0.049, 0.057], CFI = 0.894, SRMR = 0.070. We followed the approach suggested by Yoon and Millsap (2007) to locate non-invariant items using modification indices in a stepwise manner to improve the partial scalar invariance model, with χ²(df = 1143, N = 206) = 1796.24, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.050, 90% CI [0.045, 0.054], CFI = 0.907, SRMR = 0.067. Comparing the partial scalar invariance model with the previous metric invariance model, we had ΔCFI = 0.002 and ΔMNCI = 0.009. Therefore, the result suggested that scalar invariance held for 20 out of 25 items, which allows us to compare the means between measurements of knowledge and skills. The coefficients for the partial scalar invariance model are shown in Table 1. Internal consistency reliability was examined for each construct and measured by Cronbach’s alpha (see Table 1), which ranged from 0.81 to 0.92.

Table 1
Factor Loadings and Reliabilities

Parameters Loading Intercept Uniqueness Reliability

Knowledge Skills Knowledge Skills Knowledge Skills

F1 → y1 0.84 3.24 0.64 0.66 0.91 0.90

F1 → y2 0.85 3.39 3.63 0.57 0.57

F1 → y3 0.87 3.59 0.52 0.58

F1 → y4 0.84 3.17 2.83 0.67 0.61

F1 → y5 0.93 3.02 0.66 0.54

F1 → y6 0.96 3.48 0.49 0.57

F1 → y7 0.92 3.32 0.37 0.52

F2 → y8 0.72 3.81 0.76 0.98 0.92 0.91

F2 → y9 0.80 3.77 3.96 0.64 0.77

F2 → y10 0.89 3.58 0.44 0.40

F2 → y11 0.91 3.33 0.39 0.29

F2 → y12 0.85 3.60 0.32 0.53

F2 → y13 0.90 3.37 0.31 0.30

F2 → y14 0.92 3.29 0.38 0.42

F3 → y15 0.70 3.52 0.95 1.10 0.86 0.86

F3 → y16 0.62 3.67 0.75 1.12

F3 → y17 0.74 2.97 2.74 0.91 0.82

F3 → y18 0.77 3.71 0.47 0.54

F3 → y19 0.78 3.63 0.53 0.68

F3 → y20 0.94 3.72 0.50 0.48

F3 → y21 0.93 3.58 0.44 0.52

F4 → y22 0.69 3.78 3.33 0.71 0.91 0.85 0.81

F4 → y23 0.75 3.96 0.47 0.67

F4 → y24 0.75 3.86 0.29 0.41

F4 → y25 0.90 3.65 0.25 0.39

Parameters	Loading	Intercept	Uniqueness	Reliability
F1 → y1	0.84	3.24		0.64	0.66	0.91	0.90
F1 → y2	0.85	3.39	3.63	0.57	0.57
F1 → y3	0.87	3.59		0.52	0.58
F1 → y4	0.84	3.17	2.83	0.67	0.61
F1 → y5	0.93	3.02		0.66	0.54
F1 → y6	0.96	3.48		0.49	0.57
F1 → y7	0.92	3.32		0.37	0.52
F2 → y8	0.72	3.81		0.76	0.98	0.92	0.91
F2 → y9	0.80	3.77	3.96	0.64	0.77
F2 → y10	0.89	3.58		0.44	0.40
F2 → y11	0.91	3.33		0.39	0.29
F2 → y12	0.85	3.60		0.32	0.53
F2 → y13	0.90	3.37		0.31	0.30
F2 → y14	0.92	3.29		0.38	0.42
F3 → y15	0.70	3.52		0.95	1.10	0.86	0.86
F3 → y16	0.62	3.67		0.75	1.12
F3 → y17	0.74	2.97	2.74	0.91	0.82
F3 → y18	0.77	3.71		0.47	0.54
F3 → y19	0.78	3.63		0.53	0.68
F3 → y20	0.94	3.72		0.50	0.48
F3 → y21	0.93	3.58		0.44	0.52
F4 → y22	0.69	3.78	3.33	0.71	0.91	0.85	0.81
F4 → y23	0.75	3.96		0.47	0.67
F4 → y24	0.75	3.86		0.29	0.41
F4 → y25	0.90	3.65		0.25	0.39

Note: F1 = Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement; F2 = CLD Family Norms and Communication Styles; F3 = IEP Meetings and Transition Policies; F4 = CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice.

3.2 Knowledge and skills of transition personnel

The final knowledge and skills factors consisted of four scales (see Table 2 for item descriptions for each of the scales) including Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1, seven items), CLD Family Norms and Communication Styles (F2, seven items), Individualized Education Program (IEP) Meetings and Transition Policies (F3, seven items), and CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4, four items). The means of and the interrelationships between knowledge and skills are presented in Table 3. CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4) received the highest average ratings (knowledge: M = 3.78, SD = 0.15; skills: M = 3.61, SD = 0.29), while Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1) received the lowest average ratings (knowledge: M = 3.27, SD = 0.19; skills: M = 3.17, SD = 0.30), which means participants reported their personnel having lower knowledge and skills in the area of Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement and having the most knowledge and skills in the area of CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice.

Table 2
Finalized Scales and Item Descriptions for Knowledge and Skills

Factors Item Descriptions for Knowledge Item Descriptions for Skills

1 Know the importance of a CLD family’s values, beliefs, and practices related to transition of their child Ask CLD family members about their values, beliefs, and practices related to the transition of their child

Know that CLD families may desire their child to maintain connection to and identification with their primary culture Are supportive and accepting of CLD families who express a strong desire for their child to maintain a connection and identification with their primary culture

Know there is much variation among and between CLD families Do not rely on stereotypes about different cultures, but instead recognize individual family cultural values and strengths

Know that the length of time in the United States, generational status, and degree of acculturation are important characteristics of a CLD family Ask CLD families their length of time in the United States, generational status, and degree of acculturation

Know that attitudes and perceptions about people with disabilities vary between cultural groups Ask CLD families about their perceptions of having a child with a disability in relation to their culture and community

Know the importance of creating postsecondary goals that are aligned with the CLD family’s cultural values, beliefs, and practices Collaborate with CLD families to create postsecondary goals that are aligned with the families’ cultural values, beliefs, and practices

Know the essential elements of culturally responsive communication with CLD families Use culturally responsive communication when verbally interacting with CLD families

2 Know the importance of providing written correspondence in a CLD family’s preferred language Provide written correspondence in a CLD family’s preferred language

Know that some CLD families desire to orally communicate in their preferred language Ask CLD families what language they would prefer to use for oral communication

Know that some CLD families have culturally determined well-defined roles for mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, older adults and extended family and friends in the home and community Give strong consideration to culturally related roles of CLD family members when engaged in transition planning

Know that some CLD families have certain culturally related expectations of their child based on the child’s gender and/or birth order Determine a CLD family’s cultural expectations based on the child’s gender and/or birth order

Know that some CLD families value their child with a disability to continue to live in the home during adulthood Ask CLD families how important it is to them for their child to continue to live at home during adulthood

Know that some CLD families value their child staying connected to and taking care of elders Ask CLD families their cultural value about their child staying connected to and taking care of elders

Know that some CLD families give primary authority to grandparents Ask CLD families their cultural value of the authority given to grandparents

3 Know that they may need to rely on CLD community resources outside of the school district for obtaining bilingual and bicultural interpreters Use CLD community resources for obtaining bilingual and bicultural interpreters when school district interpreters are not available

Know that some CLD families can only attend transition planning meetings outside of school hours Schedule transition planning meetings outside of school hours when needed

Know that some CLD families feel more comfortable meeting in locations other than the school (e.g., family home, community center, religious institution) Meet with CLD families in locations other than the school (e.g., family home, community center, religious institution)

Know that some CLD families perceive school personnel as figures of authority and may defer decisions to school personnel Explain to CLD families the importance of their collaboration in the transition process

Know that some CLD families desire to use an ally from their community/network to participate in the transition process Encourage CLD families, when desired, to bring an ally from their community/network to participate in the transition process

Know that some CLD families do not know the legal requirements for transition in special education law Explain the legal requirements for transition to CLD families in a way the families can understand

Know that some CLD families do not understand the differences between special education services and adult services for individuals with disabilities Explain the differences between special education services and adult services for individuals with disabilities in a way that CLD families understand

4 Know that some immigrant CLD families are undocumented and may be hesitant to share their immigration status with public school personnel Provide and direct immigrant CLD families to helpful resources, regardless of their immigration status or documentation

Know that CLD families come in many forms including single parent, same sex, foster family, etc. Do not make judgments related to various family configurations (e.g., single parent, same sex, foster, etc.)

Know that some CLD families have experienced and/or continue to experience prejudice or racism in American society Use prejudice and racial free verbal and nonverbal communication when interacting with CLD families

Know that some CLD families have experienced institutional racism/discrimination that makes them reluctant to trust school professionals Communicate with CLD family members in a way that makes them feel they are equal partners with equal decision-making power during transition planning meetings

Factors	Item Descriptions for Knowledge	Item Descriptions for Skills
1	Know the importance of a CLD family’s values, beliefs, and practices related to transition of their child	Ask CLD family members about their values, beliefs, and practices related to the transition of their child
	Know that CLD families may desire their child to maintain connection to and identification with their primary culture	Are supportive and accepting of CLD families who express a strong desire for their child to maintain a connection and identification with their primary culture
	Know there is much variation among and between CLD families	Do not rely on stereotypes about different cultures, but instead recognize individual family cultural values and strengths
	Know that the length of time in the United States, generational status, and degree of acculturation are important characteristics of a CLD family	Ask CLD families their length of time in the United States, generational status, and degree of acculturation
	Know that attitudes and perceptions about people with disabilities vary between cultural groups	Ask CLD families about their perceptions of having a child with a disability in relation to their culture and community
	Know the importance of creating postsecondary goals that are aligned with the CLD family’s cultural values, beliefs, and practices	Collaborate with CLD families to create postsecondary goals that are aligned with the families’ cultural values, beliefs, and practices
	Know the essential elements of culturally responsive communication with CLD families	Use culturally responsive communication when verbally interacting with CLD families
2	Know the importance of providing written correspondence in a CLD family’s preferred language	Provide written correspondence in a CLD family’s preferred language
	Know that some CLD families desire to orally communicate in their preferred language	Ask CLD families what language they would prefer to use for oral communication
	Know that some CLD families have culturally determined well-defined roles for mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, older adults and extended family and friends in the home and community	Give strong consideration to culturally related roles of CLD family members when engaged in transition planning
	Know that some CLD families have certain culturally related expectations of their child based on the child’s gender and/or birth order	Determine a CLD family’s cultural expectations based on the child’s gender and/or birth order
	Know that some CLD families value their child with a disability to continue to live in the home during adulthood	Ask CLD families how important it is to them for their child to continue to live at home during adulthood
	Know that some CLD families value their child staying connected to and taking care of elders	Ask CLD families their cultural value about their child staying connected to and taking care of elders
	Know that some CLD families give primary authority to grandparents	Ask CLD families their cultural value of the authority given to grandparents
3	Know that they may need to rely on CLD community resources outside of the school district for obtaining bilingual and bicultural interpreters	Use CLD community resources for obtaining bilingual and bicultural interpreters when school district interpreters are not available
	Know that some CLD families can only attend transition planning meetings outside of school hours	Schedule transition planning meetings outside of school hours when needed
	Know that some CLD families feel more comfortable meeting in locations other than the school (e.g., family home, community center, religious institution)	Meet with CLD families in locations other than the school (e.g., family home, community center, religious institution)
	Know that some CLD families perceive school personnel as figures of authority and may defer decisions to school personnel	Explain to CLD families the importance of their collaboration in the transition process
	Know that some CLD families desire to use an ally from their community/network to participate in the transition process	Encourage CLD families, when desired, to bring an ally from their community/network to participate in the transition process
	Know that some CLD families do not know the legal requirements for transition in special education law	Explain the legal requirements for transition to CLD families in a way the families can understand
	Know that some CLD families do not understand the differences between special education services and adult services for individuals with disabilities	Explain the differences between special education services and adult services for individuals with disabilities in a way that CLD families understand
4	Know that some immigrant CLD families are undocumented and may be hesitant to share their immigration status with public school personnel	Provide and direct immigrant CLD families to helpful resources, regardless of their immigration status or documentation
	Know that CLD families come in many forms including single parent, same sex, foster family, etc.	Do not make judgments related to various family configurations (e.g., single parent, same sex, foster, etc.)
	Know that some CLD families have experienced and/or continue to experience prejudice or racism in American society	Use prejudice and racial free verbal and nonverbal communication when interacting with CLD families
	Know that some CLD families have experienced institutional racism/discrimination that makes them reluctant to trust school professionals	Communicate with CLD family members in a way that makes them feel they are equal partners with equal decision-making power during transition planning meetings

Note: 1 = Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (Factor 1); 2 = CLD Family Norms and Communication Styles (Factor 2); 3 = IEP Meetings and Transition Policies (Factor 3); CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (Factor 4).

Table 3

Interrelationships Between Knowledge and Skills

	F1K	F2K	F3K	F4K	F1S	F2S	F3S	F4S
F1K
F2K	0.87
F3K	0.80	0.73
F4K	0.83	0.73	0.79
F1S	0.99	0.87	0.78	0.79
F2S	0.87	0.97	0.72	0.68	0.90
F3S	0.82	0.72	0.93	0.69	0.86	0.77
F4S	0.97	0.77	0.82	0.87	0.97	0.80	0.82
M (latent)	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	– 0.08	– 0.31	– 0.20	– 0.06
SD (latent)	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	0.97	1.01	1.06	1.05
Cohen’s d	0.08	0.31	0.19	0.06
95% CI for d	0.025, 0.137	0.231, 0.287	0.103, 0.271	– 0.051, 0.169
M (scale score)	3.27	3.49	3.49	3.78	3.17	3.24	3.30	3.61
SD (scale score)	0.19	0.22	0.26	0.15	0.30	0.27	0.35	0.29

Note: F = Factor; K = Knowledge; S = Skills.

3.3 Gaps between knowledge and skills

We compared mean differences on the four latent factors between knowledge and skills. For all four factors we observed a lower mean on skills than on knowledge, with a small mean difference of 0.08 on Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1, p < 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.08), a medium difference of 0.31 on CLD Family Norms and Communication Styles (F2, p < 0.001, d = 0.31), a medium mean difference of 0.20 on IEP Meetings and Transition Policies (F3, p < 0.001, d = 0.19), and a statistically non-significant difference of 0.06 on CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4, p = 0.29, d = 0.06). The results suggested there is a small gap between knowledge and skills in the area of Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1), larger gaps between knowledge and skills in the areas of CLD Family Norms and Communication Styles (F2) and IEP Meetings and Transition Policies (F3), and no gap in the area of CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4).

4 Discussion

The purposes of this study were to improve a CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument and collect preliminary data focused on evaluating the levels of CLD transition knowledge and skills of special education and transition personnel. Our primary research questions addressed the extent to which the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument was a valid and reliable measure for evaluating transition knowledge and skills related to working with CLD youth and families and investigated the peer-rated levels of transition knowledge and skills of special education and transition personnel who work with CLD youth and families. This study extends the research base by providing a CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument that can be used for research and professional development needs and by presenting preliminary data obtained from administering the instrument.

4.1 Validity and reliability of CLDTKS evaluation instrument

After revision of the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument based upon expert reviews of the instrument and statistical analyses, the final instrument consisted of four factors comprised of 25 knowledge and 25 skill item statements that held the same item constructs for both knowledge and skills. For each knowledge level statement item on the instrument, there was a corresponding skill level statement item. The four factors of the instrument were Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1), CLD Family Norms and Communication Styles (F2), IEP Meetings and Transition Policies (F3), and CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4).

4.2 Knowledge and skills of transition personnel

Participants rated the knowledge and skills of secondary special education and transition personnel in their schools or agencies. The knowledge levels of the factors were ranked in the same order as the skills levels of the factors. None of the means of the knowledge or skills of the four factors was in the excellent range. Indeed, the means indicated knowledge and skills of transition personnel were between undecided and good. The most knowledge and skills were reported for CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4). Thus, participants reported that secondary special education transition personnel in their school or agency were most knowledgeable and skilled regarding immigration statuses, different family configurations (e.g., single parent, same sex), and personal and institutional racism of their students’ families. Initially, this finding seems to be in contrast to Povenmire-Kirk et al.’s (2010) study in which Latino youth with disabilities, their families, and special education teachers reported the concerns and difficulties surrounding documentation issues and transition planning. However, although the knowledge and skills levels of CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4) were the highest among the factors, the mean scores were not very high.

The least knowledge and skills were reported for Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1). Participants reported that secondary special education and transition personnel in their school or agency were the least knowledgeable and least skilled regarding CLD family values, beliefs, and practices pertinent to transition planning; cultural identification; and cultural perceptions of disability. This finding is consistent with what African American parents in Zionts et al. (2003) study reported regarding a greater need for cultural understanding by their children’s special educators and with what most of the Latino families and their students’ special education teachers in Povenmire-Kirk et al.’s (2010) study conveyed regarding culturally-biased services.

4.2.1 Gaps between knowledge and skills

As we hypothesized, the levels of skills for all of the factors were lower than the levels of knowledge for all of the factors. However, the gap between knowledge and skills for CLD Family Legal Status and Associated Prejudice (F4) was not statistically significant. Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1) had the smallest mean difference among the statistically significant gaps between knowledge and skills of the factors. This finding may be associated with the finding that participants reported that secondary special education and transition personnel in their school or agency also had the least amount of knowledge and skills for F1. Medium mean differences between knowledge and skills related to CLD Family Norms and Communication Styles (F2) and IEP Meetings and Transition Policies (F3) indicate the transition personnel in the participants’ school or agency may have some technical knowledge needed for working with CLD youth and their families during the transition process, but still need to strengthen their skills in those areas.

Our findings are consistent with the national picture of how well secondary special educators and transition specialists are prepared in implementing transition practices. Research findings indicated that special educators were aware of whether they have adequate transition knowledge, and secondary special educators felt they were poorly prepared to implement transition practices (Anderson et al., 2003; Blanchett, 2001; Morningstar & Clavenna-Deane, 2014). A most recent national survey examined secondary special educators’ competencies to implement transition practices and revealed that special educators might not be adequately prepared in delivering effective transition services (Benitez et al, 2009). Teachers indicated that they felt the least prepared in the competency domain including items targeting multicultural competencies (Benitez et al., 2009).

4.3 Limitations

Although we systematically chose and invited experts to participate in the content validity review of the instrument, some experts declined to participate or did not participate in each round of review. Their input may have resulted in changes to the instrument that was presented to the participants. Convenience sampling was used to collect data from transition personnel, and there was a substantial incompletion rate we attributed to the length of the instrument. We do not know if the characteristics of the participants who completed the instrument are representative of the greater population of transition personnel. In addition, due to the small sample size, we used the same data for the EFA (with knowledge items) and CFA (with knowledge and skills items) to avoid having highly unstable parameter estimates (e.g., Gorsuch, 1983, suggested at least five participants per item), but with increased risk on capitalizing on chance (MacCallum et al., 1992). Future research should attempt to replicate our results on an independent sample. Finally, participants were asked to rate the knowledge and skills of special education and transition personnel in their school or agency rather than to self-rate their own knowledge and skills. This was because the original instrument was designed to be used by supervisory personnel in school districts and adult agencies to determine their constituents’ CLDTKS and use this information to identify areas of staff development on this topic. We recognize that respondents to the survey may have lacked first-hand knowledge (e.g., direct observation) that could potentially impact the veracity of the ratings of their colleagues’ CLDTKS. If participants had been instructed to self-rate their transition knowledge and skills for working with CLD students and their families, the results regarding the mean levels of knowledge and skills may have differed. Likewise, this approach would likely have provided more direct and valid results in this regard. Therefore future research involving self-ratings is clearly warranted; however, it would require revalidation of the CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument.

4.4 Implications

4.4.1 For practice

Although a preliminary study, the findings reiterate the need for increased CLD transition knowledge and skills for secondary special education and transition personnel (Trainor et al., 2008). Because there were lower levels of skills than knowledge in each of the factors, special attention must be made to increase skill development in additional to knowledge. As noted by Greene and Kochhar-Bryant (2003), secondary special educators indicate training on transition planning usually occurs on-the-job. Greene (2011) made a number of practical suggestions regarding professional development activities to address this issue including creating quality staff development training programs on the topic of transition of CLD youth with disabilities, creating professional learning communities in schools focused on this subject, and implementing action research projects in secondary schools designed to improve CLD transition knowledge and skills. The CLDTKS Evaluation Instrument can be useful in these endeavors because the instrument can be used for self-assessment by transition personnel, practitioner assessment by families, and/or peer assessment by school personnel as a part of a peer assistance and review (PAR) program (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Humphrey et al., 2011). The instrument could be used as a part of a PAR program designed to improve educator capacities, for pre- and post-assessment of the effectiveness of professional development activities, for self-reflection by secondary level special education and transition personnel, and for obtaining the perceptions of CLD parents.

4.4.2 For policy

Active family involvement appears to be a persistent problem for CLD families (Kim & Morningstar, 2005; Landmark et al., 2013). Our finding that secondary special education and transition personnel are reported to have the least knowledge and skills in the area of Cultural Characteristics Related to Active Family Involvement (F1) supports this previously identified problem. It is important for policy makers and school administrators to reinforce the legal requirement in Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 that schools attempt to involve parents in their children’s transition planning, with particular attention paid to involving CLD families because active family involvement appears to be a persistent problem for CLD families (Kim & Morningstar, 2005; Landmark et al., 2013). Although one of the compliance indicators in the Effective Transition monitoring priority, Indicator 13, requires the student be invited to any IEP meeting that transition services are to be discussed, there is no specific criterion on the level of student and parental involvement during transition planning, other than being invited and taking into consideration the students’ strengths, preferences, interests, and needs. Additionally, the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015; previously the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) requires districts and schools who receive Title I funding to have a formal, written family engagement policy detailing how the district and its schools will use at least 1% of its Title I funds to involve parents in increasing achievement of low-income or disadvantaged students. However, there is not an explicit focus on parent involvement in IEP planning, and thus, transition planning. School districts should be responsible for providing training to teachers to develop the relationships with families necessary for improving active family involvement during transition planning. Teachers must utilize multiple means to communicate with CLD parents, gain understanding of family culture characteristics, and involve parents as partners in transition planning. Additional recommendations include developing parental advocacy through programs such as parent support groups and CLD parent education workshops. Finally, because teacher preparation programs and state teacher licensure requirements are driven by federal and state policies and priorities, it is necessary to illuminate the problem of inadequate preparation needed for effectively engaging in transition planning with CLD youth and their families so that preparation programs and professional development activities have a stronger focus on transition planning for all youth with disabilities, but especially for CLD youth.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Funding

This research was not funded by a grant.

References

Achola,

, & Greene,

(2016). Person-family centered transition planning: Improving post-school outcomes for culturally diverse youth and families. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation45(2), 173–183. doi: 10.3233/JVR-160821.

Anderson,

, Kleinhammer-Tramill,

P. J.

, Morningstar,

M. E.

, Lehmann,

, Bassett,

, Kohler,

, Blalock,

, & Wehmeyer,

(2003). What’s happening in personnel preparation in transition? A national survey. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 145–160. doi: 10.1177/088572880302600204.

Barrera,

, & Corso,

R. M.

(2003). Skilled dialogue: Strategies for responding to cultural diversity in early education (1st ed.). Brookes Publishing.

Benitez,

D. R.

, Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Frey,

B. B.

(2009). A multistate survey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals32, 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177.0885728808323945

Blackorby,

, & Wagner,

(1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children62, 399–413. doi: 10.1177/001440299606200502.

Blue-Banning,

, Summers,

J. A.

, Frankland,

H. C.

, Nelson,

L. L.

, & Beagle,

(2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children70, 167–184. doi: 10.1177/001440290407000203.

Brown,

M. R.

, & Brandon,

R. R.

(2007). African American parents: Improving connections with their child’s educational environment. Intervention in School and Clinic43, 116–120. doi: 10.1177/10534512070430020301.

Bustamente,

R. M.

, Skidmore,

S. T.

, Nelson,

J. A.

, & Jones,

B. E.

(2016). Evaluation of cultural competence assessment for preservice teachers. The Teacher Educator51(4), 297–313. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2016.1186767.

Byrd,

, & Olivieir,

B. S.

(2014). Measuring teacher cultural competence. of Social Sciences and Humanities8(1), 55–67. doi: 10.1080/08878730.2016.1186767.

10.

Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. (2016). Tools for assessing intercultural and global competence. http://www.crit.umrich.edu/print/754.

11.

Cheung,

G. W.

, & Rensvold,

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling9, 233–255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.

12.

Childre,

, & Chambers,

(2005). Family perceptions of student centered planning and IEP meetings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities39, 217–233.

13.

Darling-Hammond,

(2013, October). When teachers support and evaluate their peers. Educational Leadership, 24-29.

14.

deFur,

S. H.

, Todd-Allen,

, & Getzel,

E. E.

(2001). Parent participation in the transition planning process. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals24, 19–36. doi: 10.1177/088572880102400103.

15.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, PL 114-95 §114 Stat. 1177.

16.

Garcia,

, Arias,

M. B.

, Murri,

N. J. H.

, & Serna,

(2010). Developing responsive teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education61(1-2), 132–141. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347878.

17.

Geenen,

, Powers,

L. E.

, & Lopez-Vasquez,

(2005). Barriers against and strategies for promoting the involvement of culturally diverse parents in school-based transition planning. Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education27, 4–14.

18.

Geenen,

, Powers,

, Lopez-Vasquez,

, & Bersani,

(2003). Understanding and promoting the transition of minority adolescents. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals26, 27–46. doi: 10.1177/088572880302600103.

19.

Gil-Kashiwabara,

, Hogansen,

S. G.

, Geenen,

, Powers,

, & Powers,

(2007). Improving transition outcomes for marginalized youth. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals30, 80–91. doi: 10.1177/08857288070300020501.

20.

Gorsuch,

R. L.

(1983)., Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

21.

Graham,

J. W.

(2003). Adding missing-data-relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal10, 80–100. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_4.

22.

Greene,

(1996). Empowering culturally and linguistically diverse families in the transition planning process. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education19(1), 26–30.

23.

Greene,

(2011). Transition planning for culturally and linguistically diverse youth. Brookes Publishing.

24.

Greene,

(2014). Transition of culturally and linguistically diverse youth with disabilities: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation40, 239–245. doi: 10.3233/JVR-140689.

25.

Greene,

G. A.

, & Kochhar-Bryant,

C. A.

(2003). Pathways to successful transition for youth with disabilities: A developmental process. Merrill Prentice Hall.

26.

Harry,

B. H.

(1992). Cultural diversity, families, and the special education system: Communication and empowerment. Teachers College Press.

27.

Harry,

B. H.

(2008). Collaboration with culturally and linguistically diverse families: Ideal versus reality. Exceptional Children74(3), 327–388. doi: 10.1177/001440290807400306.

28.

Harry,

, Allen,

, & McGlaughlin,

(1995). Communication versus compliance: African American parents’ involvement in special education. Exceptional Children61, 364–377. doi: 10.1177/001440299506100405.

29.

Henson,

R. K.

, & Roberts,

J. K.

(2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement66, 393–416. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282485.

30.

Hu,

, & Bentler,

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

31.

Humphrey,

, Koppich,

, Bland,

, & Bosetti,

K. R.

(2011). Peer review: Getting serious about teacher evaluation. SRI International.

32.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.

33.

Inger,

(1992). Increasing the school involvement of Hispanic parents. ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education Digest80, 24–25.

34.

Institute for Education Sciences. (2013). Digest of education statistics: 2012. http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables.

35.

Johnson,

(2008). Post-school outcomes for students in the state of Washington, USA, receiving special education services. Journal of the International Association of Special Education9, 78–88.

36.

Kalyanpur,

, & Harry,

(1997). A posture of reciprocity: A practical approach to collaboration between professionals and parents of culturally diverse backgrounds. Journal of Child and Family Studies6(4), 487–509. doi: 10.1023/A:1025001630436.

37.

Kalyanpur,

, & Harry,

(1999). Culture in special education: Building reciprocal family-professional relationships. Brookes Publishing

38.

Kalyanpur,

, & Harry,

(2012). Cultural reciprocity in special education: Building family–professional relationships. Brookes Publishing.

39.

Kim,

, & Morningstar,

M. E.

(2005). Transition planning involving culturally and linguistically diverse families. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals28, 92–103. doi: 10.1177/08857288050280020601.

40.

Kohler,

(1996). Taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research to practice. University of Illinois, Transition Research Institute.

41.

Kohler,

P. E.

, Gothberg,

J. E.

, Fowler,

, & Coyle,

(2016). Taxonomy for transition programming 2.0: A model for planning, organizing, and evaluating transition education, services, and programs. National Transition Technical Assistance Center.

42.

Lai,

, & Ishiyama,

F. I.

(2004). Involvement of immigrant Chinese Canadian mothers of children with disabilities. Exceptional Children71, 97–108. doi: 10.1177/001440290407100106.

43.

Landmark,

L. J.

, Ju,

, & Zhang,

(2010). Substantiated best practices in transition: Fifteen plus years later. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals33, 165–176. doi: 10.1177/0885728810376410.

44.

Landmark,

L. J.

, & Zhang,

(2012). Compliance and practices in transition planning: A review of individualized education program documents. Remedial and Special Education34, 49–61. doi: 10.1177/0741932511431831.

45.

Landmark,

L. J.

, Zhang,

D. D.

, & Montoya,

(2007). Culturally diverse parents’ experiences in their children’s transition: Knowledge and involvement. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals30, 68–79. doi: 10.1177/08857288070300020401.

46.

Leake,

, & Black,

(2005). Essential tools: Improving secondary education and transition for youth with disabilities: Cultural and linguistic diversity: Implications for transition personnel. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

47.

Leake,

D. W.

, Black,

R. S.

, Roberts,

, (2003/04). Assumptions in transition planning: Are they culturally sensitive? In V. Gaylord, D. R. Johnson, C. A. Lehr, C. D. Bremer, & S. Hasazi (Eds.), Impact: Feature issue on achieving secondary education and transition results for students with disabilities, 16(3). University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

48.

Leake,

, & Boone,

(2007). Multicultural perspectives on self-determination from youth, parent, and teacher focus groups. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals30(2), 104–115. doi: 10.1177/08857288070300020101.

49.

Liontos,

L. B.

(1991). Involving at-risk families in their children’s education. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.

50.

Locust,

(1988). Wounding the spirit: Discrimination and traditional American Indian belief systems. Harvard Educational Review58(3), 315–330. doi: 10.17763/haer.58.3.e0r224774008738p.

51.

Locust,

(1994). The Piki maker: Disabled American Indians, cultural beliefs, and traditional behaviors. Native American Research Center.

52.

Lynch,

E. W.

, & Hanson,

M. J.

(2011). Developing cross cultural competence: A guide for working with children and their families (4th ed.). Brookes Publishing.

53.

MacCallum,

R. C.

, Roznowski,

, & Necowitz,

L. B.

(1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological bulletin111, 490–503. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490.

54.

Marsh,

H. W.

, Hau,

K.-T.

, & Wen,

(2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling11, 320–341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem110_2.

55.

Martin,

J. E.

, Van Dyke,

, Greene,

B. A.

, Gardner,

J. E.

, Christensen,

W. R.

, Woods,

L. L.

, & Lovett,

D. L.

(2006). Direct observation of teacher-directed IEP meetings: Establishing the need for student IEP meeting instruction. Exceptional Children72, 187–200. doi: 10.1177/001440290607200204.

56.

Meade,

A. W.

, Johnson,

E. C.

, & Braddy,

P. W.

(2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology93, 568–592. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568.

57.

Meredith,

(1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika58, 525–543. doi: 10.1007/BF02294825.

58.

Millsap,

R. E.

(2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge.

59.

Millsap,

R. E.

, & Kwok,

(2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods9, 83–115. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.93.

60.

Morningstar,

M. E.

, & Clavenna-Deane,

(2014). Preparing secondary special educators and transition specialists. In P. T. Sindelar, E.D. McCray, M. T. Brownell, & B. Lignugaris/Kraft (Eds.), Handbook of research on special education teacher preparation (pp. 405-419). Routledge.

61.

Morningstar,

M. E.

, Ni,

, (2012, May). Culturally responsive transition planning: Transforming transition course curriculum. Presented at the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center Annual Capacity Building Institute. Charlotte, NC.

62.

National Organization of Disability. (2004, June). NOD-Harris surveys. http://nod.org/research_publications/surveys_research/harris/.

63.

Newman,

(2004). Family involvement in the educational development of youth with disabilities: A special topic report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. SRI International.

64.

Newman,

, Wagner,

, Cameto,

, & Knokey,

A. M.

(2009). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school: A report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER Report No. 2009-3017). SRI International.

65.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. PL 107-110, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (2001).

66.

Olivos,

E. M.

(2009). Collaboration with Latino families: A critical perspective of home-school interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic45(2), 109–115. doi: 10.1177/1053451209340220.

67.

Patel,

R. A.

(2017). Measuring cultural competency in educators: The educators scale of student diversity, 32. http://digitalcommons.spu.edu/soe ed/32.

68.

Pentz,

M. A.

, & Chou,

C. P.

(1994). Measurement invariance in longitudinal clinical research assuming change from development and intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology62, 450–462. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.3.450.

69.

Pewewardy,

, & Fitzpatrick,

(2009). Working with American Indian students and families: Disabilities, issues, and interventions. Intervention in School and Clinic45, 91–98. doi: 10.1177/1053451209340223.

70.

Porowski,

, O’Conner,

, & Passa,

(2014). Disproportionality in school discipline: An assessment of trends in Maryland, 2009-12 (REL 2014-017).

71.

Povenmire-Kirk,

T. C.

, Bethune,

L. K.

, Alverson,

C. Y.

, & Kahn,

L. G.

(2018). A journey, not a destination: Developing cultural competence in secondary transition. TEACHING Exceptional Children47, 319–328. doi: 10.1177/0040059915587679.

72.

Povenmire-Kirk,

T. C.

, Lindstrom,

, & Bullis,

(2010). De escuela a la vida adulta/from school to adult life: Transition needs for Latino youth with disabilities and their families. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals33, 41–51. doi: 10.1177/0885728809359004.

73.

Ramos,

, Brown,

, Guzman,

, & Hickman,

(2015). Understanding and measuring providers’/teachers’ cultural sensitivity with families: Lessons learned and measurement recommendations. OPRE Report 2015-55. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

74.

Rueda,

, Monzo,

, Shapiro,

, Gomez,

, & Blacher,

(2005). Cultural models of transition: Latina mothers of young adults with disabilities. Exceptional Children71(4), 401–414. doi: 10.1177/001440290507100402.

75.

Sanford,

, Newman,

, Wagner,

, Cameto,

, Knokey,

A. M.

, & Shaver,

(2011). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school: Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER Report No. 2011-3004). SRI International.

76.

Test,

D.W.

(2011). Evidenced-based instructional strategies for transition. Brookes Publishing.

77.

Trainor,

A. A.

(2007). Person-centered planning in two culturally distinct communities: Responding to divergent needs and preferences. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals30(2), 92–103. doi: 10.1177/08857288070300020601.

78.

Trainor,

A. A.

, Lindstrom,

, Simon-Burroughs,

, Martin,

J. E.

, & Sorrells,

A. M.

(2008). From marginalized to maximized opportunities for diverse youths with disabilities: A position paper of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals31, 56–64. doi: 10.1177/0885728807313777.

79.

Valenzuela,

R. L.

, & Martin,

(2005). Self-directed IEP: Bridging values of diverse cultures and secondary education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals28, 4–14. doi: 10.1177/08857288050280010301.

80.

Velicer,

W. F.

(1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika41, 321–327. doi: 10.1007/BF02293557.

81.

Yamamoto,

K. K.

, & Black,

R. S.

(2015). Standing behind and listening to native Hawaiian students in the transition process. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals38, 50–60. doi: 10.1177/2165143413498412.

82.

Zionts,

L. T.

, Zionts,

, Harrison,

, & Bellinger,

(2003). Urban African American families’ perceptions of cultural sensitivity within the special education system. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities18, 41–50. doi: 10.1177/108835760301800106.